E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom msnbc.com's Tom Curry
Jobs, jobs, jobs. If only there were a few million more of them – and a few million more people paying payroll taxes to support Medicare and Social Security -- those two entitlement programs wouldn’t be facing insolvency quite so soon.
Friday’s release of the annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare trustees brought the news that the Medicare Hospital fund will run out in 2024, five years sooner than projected by the trustees just last August.
(These reports are usually released in the spring but were delayed last year due to the enactment of the health care law.)
The trustees pushed up the exhaustion date for combined Social Security retirement and disability funds by one year -- to 2036.
At that point, the program will be able to pay only three-quarters of the benefit amounts promised to today’s workers.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the moving up of the insolvency date for Medicare’s hospital fund was “due in large part to lower payroll tax revenues as a result of the slower than expected economic recovery. And it’s important to note that this is exactly what we’ve seen in previous recessions.”
The same applies to Social Security: fewer people working means less revenue going into the system.
Friday reports were a stark reminder that both programs are mostly paid for by current workers.
The programs have some funds amassed, but the Treasury bonds in those funds are liabilities to federal government – that is, the bonds in the funds will need to be redeemed and paid for by the taxpayers. And the interest paid on those bonds comes from today’s taxpayers.
So as employment goes, so go the entitlement programs.
Public trustee Charles Blahous said that analysts had long known that retirement of the Baby Boomer generation “would place financial strains on Social Security, but unfortunately at the same time as the Boomers began to enter the retirement rolls, we experienced an economic downturn, and so some of these fiscal pressures have arrived earlier than previously anticipated.”
In 2010 -- for the first time since the 1980s -- Social Security tax revenues fell behind outgoing benefit payments.
Blahous said “these deficits in Social Security, which began last year, will be a permanent feature of program finances going forward -- unless and until legislative corrections are enacted.”
The nominal value of the Social Security trust funds will continue to rise but “the cost of paying annual benefits is rising at a more rapid rate than the nominal value of the trust funds,” Blahous said.
The crucial question – for the unemployed and for the future of these massive entitlement programs is how quickly the United States returns the unemployment range seen during the long prosperity of 1992-2007 – unemployment at 4 percent to 6 percent, instead of today’s 9 percent.
The trustees estimated that unemployment rate will remain at 9.5 percent this year and then decline slowly over the next several years and reach 5.5 percent by 2018.
On Medicare, the trustees warned -- just as they did in last year’s report -- that their projections are based on certain assumptions that are not likely to happen.
The trustees’ projections must be based on current law.
But one big part of current law, reductions in Medicare payment rates for doctors, have regularly been overridden by Congress, simply because the cuts are too politically and economically painful.
Thus, the “almost 30 percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services is assumed to be implemented in 2012 as required under current law, despite the virtual certainty that Congress will override this reduction.”
Also doctors and hospitals may not be able meet the productivity goals in last year’s health care law.
In view of all that, the trustees warned “it is important to note that the actual future costs for Medicare are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report.”
In other words Medicare finances are likely in worse shape than the top-line numbers suggest.
Leave a Comment:
I don't imagine anyone doesn't believe that Social Security & Medicare/Medicaide need to be revamped, the question remains do we do it with a scalpel or a chainsaw?
For starters, raise the SS tax cap.
Institute 'means' testing.
Take a serious look at reducing over all health care costs...
To name a few!
The excellent news is - Ryan's Road to Ruination is dying a slow death...
Brilliant Feisty, as per usual.
So let me get this straight - you want to raise the amount I pay AND means test it, which of course means I won't get any of it.
Sure, when do I sign up?
Ok Feisty old gal - tell us how this is any different than Madoff's little ponzi? Or is it just pure and simple redistribution?
No thanks, I'll stick with my own retirement plans. Been in the works since I was 19. I'd really prefer not to have to fund someone else's plan.
Gosh I wonder 1. when they started saving for retirement, and how much sacrificing they did to make sure they would have enough?
Fiesty-- Great ideas to make Medicare viable for future generations. I hope Democrats keep Ryans plan front and center. Anyone want to defend it? Anyone?
FR:how quickly the United States returns the unemployment range seen during the long prosperity of 1992-2007 – unemployment at 4 percent to 6 percent, instead of today’s 9 percent.
Holy Moly! I know they didn't mean to but FR stumbled into a little known fact for the regular Libs here. The economy was humming along just fine until 2007. Hmmmm 2007, 2007.....oh yeah, Democrats took both houses over right around then didn't they? Hey FR, better edit this before the Redhead has you reprimanded.
And what legislation did they get past Bush, exactly?
Why not institute the sensible, responsible policy?
End "entitlement" programs. Scrap all future entitlement programs. It's not the govts business to micro-manage individual lives. Self reliance......liberty......pride in accomplishment.
Imagine how great we will be.......I don't mean Obama's interpretation of "great". He obviously thinks govt is the end all be all.
DBO- Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and the rest of their ilk were totally complicit in the Housing meltdown and their backing of Fannie and Freddie and loans to people who could not afford homes.
Hey there Spangler
So you've always had the master plan? How so very omniscient of you! So many years ago you knew to plan and you have been lucky enough that those 'plans' were never sidetracked, you never fell prey to predatorial lending practices, your were never fooled by a financial planner, you never got taken advatage of or had your trust stomped on as a consumer. LUCKY YOU! I am really proud and happy for you.
Now. What IF you were to come up on some hard times, even though you've had a good plan working all these years, and you CAN'T make it on your own? You still gonna be singin' this same ole song? Fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, recession, depression. All wipe out anysoprt of planning when insurance that SHOULD pay does so only pennys on the dollar for your life now in ashes.
YOU don't want to have nything to do with providing for others as Christ told us to do. But just like the rest of your ILK you've got you plan too bad for anyone who has no your foresight.
Oh WISE ONE, prey do tell, how much more can one with NOTHING sacrifice for his or her life at the end of it? With the water having past under the proverbial bridge and by the time your 70, the age I am planning to retire, no matter what you've saved isn't worth near as much as it was when you deposited those savings and you've gotten 1-2% interest for decades and the only thing you could ever afford was that measley little savings account living from check to check on near minimum wages after putting a few kids through school. YEA, that would leave a HUGE nest egg. NOT!
You WILL HAVE yours but when others experience 'What ifs' that were not foreseen you CUT THEM OFF.
Enjoy your retirement you inhumane CAD.
Doug Ponders. Every now and then I read a post that is so completely naive and uninformed as to be laughable which is what yours is; it reeks of self-centered, ideological fantasy. I suggest you study the impact medicare and social security has had on seniors who prior to the existence of these two programs lived in extreme poverty. What nonsense to imply that the U.S. would be great if it just went back to what existed in the early 20th century. Do you honestly think only people like you work hard, take pride in accomplishment, are self-reliant? What drivel. Have a nice weekend anyway.
This country will be so much better off once all the baby boomers are dead.
Golly Missy - you seem to be missing the point.
See I got me a good education - in accounting and law to be specific which sure helps dealing with the financial planners and such. It also really helps with the hard times thing - that and always have top notch insurance. I highly recommend umbrellas, and depending on your individual circumstances, supplemental.
If you plan right you can go far. But it's hard Missy, and it takes discipline. You got what it takes Missy? You start early and always wet aside a percent of income, no matter what? Sure you did.
Oh and Christ didn't tell me to do anything. Not my bag.
And 1-2% for decades? That's just ridiculous. Paycheck to paycheck? Minimum wage? Oh My, but see my first comment about education and discipline.
Sorry to hear you are kinda boned, but it certainly does explain a lot of your comments here.
Good luck Missy, sadly it appears you will need it.
Jody
It is you who are naive and self-centered.
As if you have the facts. SS and Medicare were both knee jerk reactions from the Party of the poverty pimps. Their inevitable failure demonstrate they should never have seen inception.
54 trillion dollars (conservative estimate) in unfunded mandates genius. Do you think that will have an impact on future generations? In the future, if we survive as a nation, they will do studies on the idiocy and the impact such programs had on our nation.
Bedwetters such as yourself have no idea what it means to be free so you want others to carry you. Life scares you. Enough is enough
Chris, Cranbury, NJ. Wrote: "This country will be so much better off once all the baby boomers are dead."
We could say the same for the dumasscrates!
Don't forget the Obama tax cut that reduced the rate from 6% to 4%. I think he's trying to set up a SS crisis by underfunding the program.
Please take away the caps on the amount of money that can be paid to Social Security. If you make 1 million a year, you should have to pay the 4.2 % to social security on the whole million. However, if you work for a company, I wouldn’t want the employer to pay the matching over the cap they are paying.
And how about the self employed job1? You understand how it works for the self employed, correct?
And really, you think the politicians are going to give up the increased employer contributions? Really?
Of course they won't so what effect would such an increase have on hiring? See my man, higher taxes very rarely means higher revenue. Neat, right?
We have to pay for it and cutting spending on the poor and middle class want work.
job 1, Since SS payouts are based on what you pay in, does your suggestion mean that raising the cap on payments to SS will also increases the payout when you retire? Or do you want to get rid on the cap on contributions but retain the cap on retirement payouts?
I think if a person pays more in they should get more. The problem is that money paid should be earning interest and not be borrowed for other programs.
That's easy Rocco - Job1 wants the max taxes on who he/she perceives to be "rich."
So, like Feisty said above - they want max pay in then not pay out, which they will try to get through means testing. You know - it means you get squat on rye.
No thanks.
Cause see the Job1s the Missys and the Feistys of the world did plan well or at all, and now need our money for their retirement. It just will never happen.
The 2011 Medicare and Social Security Trustees report just came out and it shows both “trust” funds are in worse shape than last year. The Trustees report projects Medicare going bankrupt five years sooner than their 2010 report and SS a year sooner than last year. Having worked with actuaries in the past, I know that their projections have a wide range of possible outcomes depending on the assumptions used in the calculations. Given that all the Trustees are Barry appointees, it’s pretty safe to say this report is a best-case scenario. Maybe the Dem Senators should have spent the time they wasted on yesterday’s big oil Soviet style show trial trying to figure out a way to fix the holes in their beloved New Deal Ponzi schemes.
From MSDNC.com:
WASHINGTON — Two of the government's most popular programs for the elderly, Medicare and Social Security, will run out of money sooner than thought earlier as a slow-growing economy saps revenues, a report Friday said.
Trustees for the two funds said the Medicare trust fund is projected to exhaust its funds in 2024, not 2029 as estimated last year, and that the Social Security retirement program will run out of money in 2036, not 2037 as previously thought.
Excuse me, but I believe the unfunded prescription drug benefit was Bush's Ponzi scheme, raiding the funds to cover up the true war costs was another republican scheme, the reduced payroll taxes resulted from republican blackmail.
Which means that representatives from BOTH sides had better take responsibility for this mess.
AM: you are absolutely right about Part D. I opposed it when the R's pushed it through. Part D is a small part of the problem compared to regular SS and Medicare Parts A and B. Both parties have borrowed from SS to fund their deficits for many years. However, they did not "raid" the fund, they gave the funds US Treasury bonds that will have to be paid back and will just run up the Chinese credit even higher. That is happening right now because SS is taking in less money than is going out. The reduced SS tax for 2011 was Barry's doing. It was his way to avoid workers seeing their paychecks go down when his Porkulus bill Making Work Pay credit expired on12/31/10
From Politifact:
New payroll tax 'holiday' means restructured tax credits, with varied results
Updated: Tuesday, January 4th, 2011 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
President Obama won another year of tax reductions for workers in a major tax compromise that he signed into law right before Christmas. But thanks to the intricacies of tax law, some workers will get slightly bigger breaks in 2011, while others do slightly worse.
To review the history: President Obama campaigned on tax breaks for workers, proposing a rebate that would equal about $500 a year -- technically, the first 6.2 percent of the first $8,100 of earnings. Congress accepted his proposal, including it in the economic stimulus of 2009, but they trimmed it back slightly to a maximum of $400. The tax credit, known as "Making Work Pay," expired at the end of 2011.
So the first time around Obama got slightly less than he wanted, and he only got it for two years. At the time, we rated his promise Compromise.
In December 2010, Obama brokered a broad tax deal with Republicans, avoiding automatic tax increases that were scheduled to take effect and extending some of the tax breaks from the stimulus. But the Making Work Pay tax credit didn't make the package. Instead, the bipartisan compromise created a 2 percent tax "holiday" from payroll taxes that workers pay toward Social Security.
the “almost 30 percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services is assumed to be implemented in 2012 as required under current law, despite the virtual certainty that Congress will override this reduction.”
Well duh.
The same goes for the 'assumption' that Medicare would cut an additional $500 Billion from Medicare by 'eliminating fraud and abuse' so that HCR would look like it would 'save' money, when everyone knew that was just 'smoke and mirrors' to get HCR passed.
poor person
The Democrats have been in charge of both houses of Congress or both houses of Congress and the Presidency for 45 of the last 66years. Look what we got.
To save our country you will pay more and that is the only way.
If there was a doubt in anyone's mind that Medicare needs to be overhauled this should erase it. We need to convert records to an electronic system so that duplicity can be eliminated and fraud made easier to detect. Perhaps raise the payroll Medicare tax to bring additional funds into the system. Vouchers will only bring windfall profits to the insurance companies and moving the burden to the states would add a financial burden they cannot afford. Salvage Medicare in it's present form so that the safety net protects all who are or will be dependant on it.
Sure Ira lets jack up the tax rate. You gonna tell all the kids thay are totally hosed?
Golly I could have sworn Schumer and the gang have been telling us all is well for a long time. Guess not so much, eh?
Ira do you really think we can 1. "protect all" and 2. have a vibrant economy - at the same time?
...as a BTW...the OMB projects that moving records to an electronic data base will save multi billions over time.
Spanky-..
Ira do you really think we can 1. "protect all" and 2. have a vibrant economy - at the same time?
..................................
I do...why do you think the 2 are mutually exclusive? A properly funded Medicare, one that is made effiecient and as fraud free as possible, should be dollar neutral, no effect on revenues or expenses. The fact that the prescription drug plan was thrown in there and never funded is the cause of the financial problem. Address the Plan D program funding, make the existing system efficient and I think we can keep the safety net with no impact on the budget.
The high unemployment rate isn't a surprise. It is a condition of the Keynesian economic model Obama and Geithner are following. Because of that, the answer unfortunately to the above question by FR is never, at least not under the current economic model.
Raising taxes and continuing the massive government deficit spending will only exasperate the problem.
This has been a dream for years. And even if you get around the HIPAA privacy laws and put up with the privacy leaks that will occur, the notion of saving "multi-billions", even if it happened, would be a drop in the trillion dollar bucket of the entitlements.
Same with the "efficient" and "fraud and abuse" angle the pols keep talking about for these entitlement programs. Every wonder why we never see any savings by stopping fraud and abuse? Ever wonder why these programs are never made more efficient? Because they are good as they are ever going to get. Bureaucracies are like that. We've been "reforming" public education for 40 years - see any improvements there?
JoAnnaSmith1
And even if you get around the HIPAA privacy laws and put up with the privacy leaks that will occur, the notion of saving "multi-billions", even if it happened, would be a drop in the trillion dollar bucket of the entitlements.
.....................
The records are already on file and all that is happening is that they are being consolidated into one master database. HIPPA doesn't apply. The bucket is mostly funded by payroll taxes and needs to be made more efficient. Fix the drug paln that was left undunded by Bush and see where we are. No they are not as good as they can be. Not even close. that's why both parties are calling for an overhaul.
Income redistribution and a vibrant economy are not very compatible. Taxes, and particularly raising them are also not so good.
You gonna tell all the self employed that their current 13% just ain't enough? Oh my, Ira, how much should they pitch in? 20% 25%?
Ira, again, any savings generated by the electronic medical records (EMR) are a drop in the bucket when compared to the massive short-falls for the entitlement programs. Both parties can call for an overhaul, but getting them to agree on one is going to be very, very difficult.
Now, Paul Ryan has a plan on the record for Medicare. Many don't like it, some do. Until someone else gets a plan on the record, people may want to be a little more open to what Mr. Ryan has proposed. And the reason for that is our window is closing on the options we have to resurrect these programs. Fairly soon the only choices we'll have are 1) Massive tax increases 2) Means testing 3) Default. I'm certain none of these three items will be very popular, but it's not like we'll have much of a choice.
You mean end the program and take away a Bush accomplishments. Great!!
BTW It's Medicare B (physician services) that has the biggest unfunded liability. Thats why HCR was such a farce. Expand the costliest part of health care but do nothing to reduce the costs, because we would have to fight too many special interest groups, and it's a "Big F.... Deal" to give Medicade to 15M people who wont be able to find a provider.
"Future Payroll Tax Burdens. Currently, a 12.4 percent payroll tax on wages funds Social Security and a 2.9 percent payroll tax funds Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance). But if payroll tax rates rise to meet unfunded obligations:
Thus, more than one-third of the wages workers earn in 2054 will need to be committed to pay benefits promised under current law. That is before any bridges or highways are built and before any teachers' or police officers' salaries are paid."
www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
Yep, computerize the records and we won't have to change a thing.
Spanky-
One last post before the weekend...
You lost me when you compared Medicare to income redistribution. Everyone pays at the same rate. Where is wealth moving?
Pay more now or if you're under 54 pay premiums to the insurance companies for the rest of your life. The incremental payroll increase is minimal compared to the cost of insurance premiums even when present valued.
Have a great weekend.
Time to declare victory in Afghanistan and bring the troops home.
Between FY2009 and FY2010, average monthly DOD spending for Afghanistan grew from $4.4billion to $6.7 billion a month
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Amy - now why would you post something that makes sense? lol
This is the Teapubicans golden opportunity to abolish the social safety nets they've been squealing about for 50 years!
Not gonna happen on MY watch, if I can help it!
LOL! That's funny Red! On your watch... HAHAHAH.... like you are even relevant!
This coming from the poster girl of irrelevant!
Thanks for the laugh! I needed that! ;o)
Hey, who was the President that authorized the increase in the number troops in 2009?
(Hint: For once it wasn't Bush)
Any Republican who tries to get rid of Social Security will not last in office.
No need to get rid of it - it's getting rid of itself.
Way too many old people than worker bees.
Damn worker bees. Doom they are. Just doomed.
Seriously, guys, I just googled cost of war in Afghanistan and I got this document. All you geeks out there should look at these numbers. Tell me how the heck we could afford this, and NOT afford to take care of our own people.
The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other
Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11
Amy Belasco
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget
March 29, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Riddle me this...how does ending the war in Afghanastan save an underfunded Medicare program? The deficit this year is going to be around $1.5 trillion. Ending the war lowers our debt about $84 billlion...so that's less we have to borrow. If you're suggesting we take the $84 billion we save and spend it on Medicare, all you are doing is taking BORROWED money and transferring it to another program. We need to FIX the problem and not throw borrowed money at it to keep it alive. Sorry.
Ya but you don't understand, this is what us libtards do. If something is broke or does not work, throw more tax payers money at it. We are'nt tax payers, so it's not like it's my money.
Hi Amy,
So true. Also, the Republican don't want to pay back the Social Security money that has been borrowed through the years.
sonmanvb..
Really...Please don't help.
I'm sure the stimulus didn't hurt us at all? How many jobs where saved again? What did the unemployment rate raise too? How much did that train station cost to put Biden's name on it? Shovel ready jobs? Forgot, how many again?
Couldn't have scripted it better if they had been trying. Raid the fund, wreck the economy, and cut payroll taxes.
You don't suppose they WERE trying, do you?
This should come as no surprise. Don't kid yourself, the GOP has hated medicare and social security for decades. They passed an unfunded Rx Program knowing it would create a financial crisis and further destabilize the medicare fund. Their goal--privatize it as Paul Ryan's budget does. Medicare, like the VA, are the most efficient and cost effective health insurance programs available BECAUSE they are nonprofits, are not traded on the stock market and there's no shareholders to keep happy.
There are easy solutions without privatizing and killing it. I see others have already mentioned easy solutions. Another is to allow healthier people, age 55, into the system. Better yet, medicare for all but that's not likely to happen for awhile.
Straight from the mouth of an ignorant libtard
Jody, If Medicare is so efficient, why did Obama promise to cut out 500 BILLION in waste and fraud from it. $500 Billion in waste and fraud is efficient?
Just imagine what he might be able to find in the defense budget.
Probably a lot Anna, but the money used and not wasted is for your safety and national defense right? Now all the money you put into SS and Medicare, there's a good chance you won't see it at all and you just gave it to someone that probably didn't put into it. Are you ok with that?
Feisty and Ira, They could raise the Medicare payroll tax. The real solution would be put people back to work that would help S.S and Medicare and reduce the deficit.
Lets not forget to stop ALL this spending.
Well 87% of the people want Medicare & Social Security ...so the bribes to foreign country's and the wars need to end ! .... its no longer in the budget !
I blame congress for not ending it all !
OMG, an entitlement is going broke? Quick Obama, raise the taxes on the 53% that pay them. Make the big companies pay even more except of course GE. GE should not pay any taxes because they are an Obama fav company.
Ya gotta love it when a libtards plan comes together.
sonmanvb,
The more you post the more you sound like a retard. Please go away.
Amy,
Tell me how the heck we could afford this, and NOT afford to take care of our own people.
That's a good point and I just realized the same thing applies to the Dream Act. Before you blow a gasket let me ask you this -
Dont you think its unfair to the taxpayers, and to the students and families that are here legally. In this time of fiscal crisis and strain on our public colleges and universities, our priority must be to help our kids who are legal residents.
How can we afford to do this, don't you think we should take care of our kids first?
Not at all thetotas, we need to have our borders open to all. We need the extra tax revenue we would get from the few that would work to pay for, well what ever we can think of. But then we could just borrow the money from some other country. I need more entitlements, as it is, I am working way too much.
@ SPANKY
Your the king of missing points on this blog, Splasher. I wasn't talking about myself there bub. I got a pretty good life, gots me a pretty good edumacation too! ALL PAID off now too, all 3 degrees. I'm a good dooby like that, doncha, know.
Naw I'm talking about those you would call something like n'er-do-wells at the kindest. It's not surprising you demean living by faith; "not your bag" (How glib.). Not everyone does. It's not a game by the way, it's a path; kind of like life, you can't always see around corners. Hope that works out for you and you don't run into any unforeseen walls.
I'm also glad you can afford all that 1st class insurance with supplement. Better count your eggs, some of 'em just might not hatch into checks. ANYTHING can happen to ANYBODY and put them in the ditch here in America. You have as much freedom to loose as you do to gain in this old world, Sprangler. Sure do hope you keep beating those odds.
Finally, I didn't know you like DISCIPLINE, wanna come over and see my dungoen some time?
OXOXOXOXOX
Awww Missy, now you are talking!
Although I can't imagine reconciling a good dungeon with the Christ almighty. Seems like JC may not be too into the pleasure/pain thing.
But as far as the egg things goes - I got most of the bases covered. For everything else I got gold 9actual gold in a safe) and lots of lead.
See you next week Missy. Should be good times - the debt ceiling is approaching hard and fast.
It's the economy, stupid! No jobs, no revenue. Millions of older workers with no jobs and no hope of finding one.... Should they lose thier house, or file much earlier than they wanted to for Social Security? Duh.
If government didn't steal the money in the first place, there wouldn't be the big problem now. Maybe, if they stopped giving my money to illegals to support them, there wouldn't be the big problem. Maybe if they stopped all that foreign aide, there wouldn't be the big problem now.
There are MILLIONS of retirees STILL working but also collecting SS. Spanky .. your ignorant. People at age 60(baby boomers)have PAID into SS for 40 years. They deserve MORE,NEED MORE, and should retire at 60 as their ancesters did.SS paymennts should be increased,AGE 60 should be forced to retire, let the youth(who will by new cars and buy new houses at the NEW lower prices to get this economy going)and the NOW working generation NEEDS to pay for it in SS TAXES. It worked in the 50's and since we've made this an AGING country. STOP paying 20-40 year olds UNEMPLOYMENT(more than most SS) while they sit at home playing DVDS' and XBOX. TRILLIONS of DOLLARS are also being spent on GAMBLING(from Casinos,to lotteries,to on-line,to sportin events. Gambling TAXES could SUPPORT SS,PERIOD.
TAX GAMBLING,TAX SMOKING,TAX GAS GUZZLERS,TAX IMPORTS, TAX ALCOHOL,TAX TOURISM. ALL SAID...WE spend TRILLIONS of dollars,then spend MORE trillions of dollars fighting against, then MORE TRILLIONS of dollars in LAWSUITS,then MORE TRILLIONS on related HEALTH ISSUES,then MORE TRILLIONS on INSURACE against them. 50% TAX on ALL the ABOVE,NOT necessary and let those that abuse them all pay for it. BACK to the BASICS
SPANKY, keep watching the stock market dive,keep watching the poor get poorer, keep watching foreclosures and lost jobs, somewhere.....way down the line .....it WILL effect you. Somebody buys,uses,supports where your money is...in stocks,banks,real estate,or whatever you have to offer....and it CAN END.
Oh great, by the time I retire in 6 years the Soc. Sec./Medicare I've been paying into my whole life will be gone and just like our idiot WI governor calls my pension an entitlement program, this article also calls another program I've also been forced to pay a large portion of my weekly earnings into "an entitlement program". I feel I'm entitled to both because they were both paid for as deductions from my paycheck. Money taken from me, so I couldn't use it or save/invest it on my own, because the government was "saving" it for me in my old age. Now I can look forward to dying greeting customers as I pass out carts at WalMart. Lucky Me- I will never enjoy sitting back, catching up on all that reading, knitting, sewing, or gardening I always wanted to do, but never had the time to do since I was working & taking care of my health so I'd live long enough to have "golden years."
But since my dauhter is a dialysis nurse you might be interested in the following TRUE conversation one of her 84 year old patients just had with her last week.
Patient:"So with this dialysis, now my kidney problems are cured?"
Nurse:"No sir, as long as you continue the dialysis and closely follow your diet you will feel better than before, but this can not cure you."
Patient: "Well as long as I get dialysis, I can eat what I want!"
Nurse: "No sir, you have to carefully monitor what you eat, a banana could kill you. It's loaded with potassium and could stop your heart."
Patient: "I'm 84 years old and if I feel like having a banana, I WILL! Your job is to do the diaylsis."
Nurse: "Medicare requires that I help you understand how to live with your disability. If your levels are high you're at risk, it looks like I'm not doing my patient education and the clinic does not get paid for your treatment."
Patient: "I don't care, did you hear me- I'm 84, I could die anyday. Why should I care if you get paid or not."
Nurse: "But if you're ready to die, why do you come every week for dialysis?"
Patient: "I don't have to pay for it and if Medicare doesn't pay, you still have to treat me! I'm 84 & going to enjoy the rest of my life!"
That's a man with entitlement issues. Hasn't worked in about 30 years. Has plenty of money, but is saving it to split up between his kids/grandkids/great grandkids.
Therefore, when people don't follow medical advice, why aren't they required to sign that they have been informed, but their CHOICE is to NOT FOLLOW best health practices? Why aren't their Medicare payments for supplies, dr. visits, drug prescriptions frozen, just like their dialysis treatment fees? Why aren't they required to begin to pay for their non-medicare covered supplies when their health condition is a direct result of their unwillingness to follow medical advice? Even if the clinic is eating the cost of this man's treatment, my daughter's pay goes down because of the incorrect assumption that she isn't educating him. We as citizens continue to pay for all the other related issues regarding his failing kidneys- why because he's gonna do what he wants. Talks smart that he's ready to die, but the old man still expects all the bells, whistles & money from those of us too scared to stop working to keep his sorry ass alive. I say every working person should send him a weekly banana bread and put us all out of our misery!
Social Security and Medicare would be solvent if the federal government stopped transferring workers and employers matching funds taken from their paychecks to the US treasury to be spent on illegal and unconstitutional wars and the standing military.
Article 1: Section 8: Clauses 12 & 13 of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibt Congress from raising and funding a standing Army (including the Air Force and Coast Guard), for a term longer than two years but permit it to raise and fund a Navy (which the US Marine Corps is part of). In 2000 the entire US Military budget of the United States was about $300 billion. In 2010 it eclipsed $1.3 trillion, when our annual deficit was $1.4 trillion. (1)
Article 1: Section 8:
Clause 12: Congress shall have the power to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: Congress shall have the power to provide and maintain a Navy;
The defense of these United States shall depend on the maintained Navy, Marine Corps, and militia as referred to in Article 1: Section 8: Clauses 15 & 16 which state:
Congress shall have the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
Just what is the militia referred to by articles 15 & 16?
Aaccording to U.S. Code: Title 10: Subtitle A: Part I: Chapter 13 : Section 311. Militia: composition and classes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of these United States on 2/01/2010, it is:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are:
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Based on the 2010 federal military budget the cost to the federal government of maintaining both the legal Navy and Marine Corps would be $179 billion a year. That would reduce the federal annual deficit from $1.3 trillion down to $121 billion bucks.
That would terminate the need to transfer money from the Social Security Administration to the federal treasury and instead could be put into commercial, not investment banks in the name of the taxpayer where it would earn interest and be untouchable until retirement age or unless the worker became disabled.
The remaining $121 billion federal government annual deficit could be corrected by eliminating both oil corporate subsidies and tax breaks. (2) Additionally, over $60 billion a year could be saved by the federal government cracking down on medicare and medicaid fraud. (3)
Additional billions could be saved annually if the federal government set up a regulatory structure that oversaw the conduct of health care corporations throughout the United States. (4)
See how easy it would be to balance the federal budget, create and annual budget surplus just like the U.S. had back in 2000 thereby taking this careless and irrational diatribe about terminating Social Security and Medicare ( programs we working folks have contributed to all of our adult lives ) off the table.
Off course the elected in D.C. and the state capitals, under pressure from Defense Contractors, the Energy and Mining industry, Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical corporations through political campaign contributions, lobbying, disinformation and propaganda ads on television and in your mail box, don't want reform but want your money. And they will go to any lengths, break any laws, to maximze profits as the expense of the nation.
(1). Military Budget of the United States.
(2). As Oil Industry fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies by David Kocieniewski: New York Times July 3, 2010.
(3). Government Launches Health Care Fraud Most-Wanted: Associated Press. February 5, 2011 Fox News.
(4). Government Dirt: Top 20 largest Cases of Companeis Caught for Committing Fraud Against the Government.
It is hard to get people or leaders to see how giving people money could benefit most of the country I think this plan would give everyone something while helping the millions who have lost almost everything; and put the country back on a stable course and possible solve many of the long term problems of SS medicare deficit, or at least buy time for the recovery to happen, and allow the goverment to cut much more on programs to find money to pay on the debt without risking a second recession, or more job losses.
If the congress wants to bring back jobs, and have A full economic force generating revenues to pay on the deficit they need to make it happen! waiting for it to happen will take too long, and millions will suffer, and fall behind creating more problems that will cost more money down the road.
If they pay the people unemployed, and low wage earners around twenty million of them around five or six hundred dollars per week for two years this will bring these people up to the poverty level, and give them the chance they need to recover, and support there lives and families while saving the government, and states money that would be spent to help them, also the money they spend will stimulate the economy.
Also to make it more effective, and bring in more tax revenues allow them to work while they collect this money without penalties; from the five or six hundred dollars take out from the top 28% tax, and 8% SS tax every week, If they give this 28% to the states every week as A one time accounting practice it will stabilise most of the states, in A relatively short time, this in turn would create many jobs on the state and city levels, and bring in more tax revenues while stimulating the economy more, while at the same time collecting more taxes for SS and medicare.
[ Also the states should not pay this money back]
[ for these two years they could cut more spending with a much lessor effect on peoples lives as the economy is being stimulated by all the new taxes, from the jobs this would create.]
The government and states could withhold assistance money for two years saving more while at the same time the ones receiving this would have to re- apply for it later possible eliminating much waste and fraud by means testing when they apply for it.
repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and the middle class as A way to pay for this, also it could help to raise wages in the work force when they have more demand for workers everyone in the country would benefit by this, not just the unemployed.
add on to the obove:
the 28% taken from the top would be around 3 billion dollars going directly to the states as needed to balance ther budgets this would stabalise the whole country, and save thousands of jobs,, that would provide more tax revenues.
The 8% would be around 1 billion dollars per week for two years this would help SS medicar or could be used to pay down on the deficit, all this would save a lot of interest money that is being paid out on the deficit now.
The money that these people would take home would be around 24 billion dollars per month this would go into the economy, and the jons it would create by the spending would bring in more taxes.
We want our 2.5 Trillion back
The answer to this economic issue is still in a combination of changes that need to occur. One. The Bush Tax Cuts need to end. Two. Corporation tax loop holes, and the tax payer subsidies to big oil need to end. Three. The tax brackets for the top 5% of Americans needs to be increased. Now these are just a few economic places to start with, and then add on polices will follow. "Tinkle Down" economic polices of the GOP/RNC have never worked! The only Americans to get soaked by yellow rain here are the Middle Class, the Working Poor, the elderly, and the disabled.
Progressive
Where are your Budget Cuts??? You can't tax people enough to pay for the expenditures.